And if someone can think of someway to allow it to have its own identity then I'd be all for a class. Actually, a class would still be the best way to bring it in, best way to allow it to explore its own lore.

The trouble is - it can't have its own identity. Too much of what makes it special has been given away and used to benefit other classes. The window when it could have been a class and give an opportunity to develop - launch of Vanilla - has come and gone.

EJL

Every class concept is cool, popular, and wanted though.

I also would be all for the DH class, if it could be true to the WC3 version that I know and love. Just like the Death Knight and the Monk class are true to their WC3 incarnations. Unfortunately, it can't be at this point, because Blizzard has given that design space to the Warlock and Rogue class.

I have no desire to see some random class called "Demon Hunter" in the game.

Well....no. Tinkers aren't really cool, for example, nor are they as popular or as wanted as DHs. There is a large element of "Eye of the Beholder" here, but there has been a long lasting, persistent demand for Demon Hunters to be added.

The look, the stories, the lore....canon or not, it all adds to give the DH a certain aura.

Well....no. Tinkers aren't really cool, for example, nor are they as popular or as wanted as DHs. There is a large element of "Eye of the Beholder" here, but there has been a long lasting, persistent demand for Demon Hunters to be added.

Well clearly the demand wasn't strong enough, since a DH class never made it into the game.

The look, the stories, the lore....canon or not, it all adds to give the DH a certain aura.

DHs are just cooler than Tinkers.

EJL

I will admit that DHs are cooler, but I'd rather play a Tinker class. For all their flashy style, DHs seem extremely dull when you get right down to it. Maybe its because we have so many Melee-magic dual wielders in the game already, and because the Tinker class concept is so wide open.

I love the WC3 Goblin Tinker & Alchemist heroes, GW2 Engineer profession, and SWTOR Bounty Hunter, for example. They're awesome, providing that "nutcase with a toolbox" feeling in a world mostly dominated by people relying on genuine magical powers.

DH is certainly cool, but we have so much of that brand of cool available in WoW already that it just feels kind of "ehhh" by comparison. It's like, when you've been single for a month sex sounds awesome, but when you've been having sex all day it's like... still good, but... ehhh. That's where I'm at with badass classes in WoW, I think we're saturated.

Quirky stuff like Monk and Tinker, on the other hand, feel really refreshing to me.

I still think DH can be familiar and new at the same time. Ranged meta wouldn't work for a melee class anyways in WoW. Changes would still affect the class even if warlocks or rogues never existed.

There isn't much to debate other than opinion here. The fact is that the class is unlikely to exist. It doesn't mean it can't or wont. The DH has all rights to take up any new identity beyond the War3 hero. No amount of overlap matters.

How is the process different when the ability behaves almost identically between the WC3 Hero unit and the Warlock spec?

We're talking about a DH WoW form different from Warcraft 3/Warlock Meta. For example, it woul be a melee form using arcane runes to channel fel energy to change physical form rather than invoking a demons form. It could be like how Spirit wolf is a diff method from druids.

The end result is a DH with a 'demonic form' that boosts melee combat, using arcane transmutation to channel fel magic. This is thematically different from invoking demon forms by making pacts and being a ranged form. The visuals would also be different by augmenting the players look instead of aa generic illidan demon form.

The issue is that picking random trivial similarities is not the same thing as having to resolve a class' single most iconic ability already being in the domain of another class for 5+ years.

Death Coil for DKs, by contrast, was only in-game by name — Locks didn't use it remotely the same as the WC3 unit, and DC was significantly less iconic than things like Army of the Dead or diseases/plague, which were never parceled out to other classes.

Warlock gameplay is still 100% ranged. DH gameplay is melee. DH Demon form could be a 3 min cooldownspell for all specs. Done.

Warlocks may have War3 meta, but it doesn impact a Demon Hunter WoW identity since they would need to adhere to strict melee gameplay. Paladins do not have mass ressurection. All players get mass res. It doesnt make paladins any less of a class.

Well clearly the demand wasn't strong enough, since a DH class never made it into the game.

The demand - I believe - IS there.

It's just not strong enough to outweigh the issues Blizzard has. Adding a DH class really does nothing, and it would negatively affect other classes - precisely because of the "cool" factor. This is a case of "Whats best for the game is not what the players want".

I'll invite you to look at how Tinkers are depicted in game and ask you to get back to me.

IMO...the Tinker class is unsuited for a player class. Tech, in this game, has been a source of levity. Of whimsy. As a result, the Tinker class - as shown - is (IMO) not suited for a player class. It isn't serious enough. It doesn't have the respect of the players.

That's a pity. But carrying around a huge pair of robot arms on my back is not the class I, for one, would want to play. It is too ridiculous looking.

Instead, a serious take of a tech based class would be a complete from the ground reworking of the class concept. It would take **NOTHING** from the hero class save, perhaps, the name. And, given that the name is already in use with the profession, even that is relatively meaningless.

In short - I wouldn't mind a tech based class. But a WC3 style Tinker has no interest for me. It looks ridiculous, its played too much for laughs, and it comes with unwelcome baggage as a result.

Tell that to the warlocks and rogues whose identity overlaps the rogues.

Identity matters.

Originally Posted by Thimagryn

We're talking about a DH WoW form different from Warcraft 3/Warlock Meta. For example, it woul be a melee form using arcane runes to channel fel energy to change physical form rather than invoking a demons form. It could be like how Spirit wolf is a diff method from druids.

Yeah...and the trouble is, DHs wouldn't be getting Meta. Blizzard isn't going to design a class knowing it will take something from Warlocks. There is no gameplay reason to justify handing out that move and ability.

Warlocks may have War3 meta, but it doesn impact a Demon Hunter WoW identity since they would need to adhere to strict melee gameplay.

I still think DH can be familiar and new at the same time. Ranged meta wouldn't work for a melee class anyways in WoW. Changes would still affect the class even if warlocks or rogues never existed.

There isn't much to debate other than opinion here. The fact is that the class is unlikely to exist. It doesn't mean it can't or wont. The DH has all rights to take up any new identity beyond the War3 hero. No amount of overlap matters.

The overlap doesn't matter to you perhaps, but it definitely matters to Blizzard.

The denial of facts and evidence from your side of the debate astounds me.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Talen

I'll invite you to look at how Tinkers are depicted in game and ask you to get back to me.

IMO...the Tinker class is unsuited for a player class. Tech, in this game, has been a source of levity. Of whimsy. As a result, the Tinker class - as shown - is (IMO) not suited for a player class. It isn't serious enough. It doesn't have the respect of the players.

That's a pity. But carrying around a huge pair of robot arms on my back is not the class I, for one, would want to play. It is too ridiculous looking.

Instead, a serious take of a tech based class would be a complete from the ground reworking of the class concept. It would take **NOTHING** from the hero class save, perhaps, the name. And, given that the name is already in use with the profession, even that is relatively meaningless.

In short - I wouldn't mind a tech based class. But a WC3 style Tinker has no interest for me. It looks ridiculous, its played too much for laughs, and it comes with unwelcome baggage as a result.

I often wonder what you found so silly about the original WC3 hero. Its a Goblin, so of course its going to be a little off kilter. However, it was nowhere near as ridiculous as the Brewmaster.

Its possible that we're looking at something neither of us expect. Ghostcrawler seemed to be pointing more towards Lucca from Chrono Trigger or something more Steam-punk based.

We'll just have to wait and see what direction Blizzard wants to go. I would actually prefer adherence to the old WC3 hero unit, since that's Warcraft Tinker for me. The good news is that the theme is pretty wide open, so Blizzard has many directions it can go in.

That said, I think something like this;

Would be great to play as. It gives you the mech suit, looks original, and it hearkens back to the original WC3 hero.

Its funny how you accept that tinker could be something entirely different than what tinker was in WC3, but yet demon hunter must be exact replicate of wc3 unit.

Don't confuse Talen with myself. Talen doesn't feel that WC3 is as important to WoW classes as I do.

Given the Monk and the DK classes, Blizzard patterns their inclusions pretty close to the WC3 originals. I believe the Tinker would be no different. I believe its going to have every single ability from WC3 as well as a couple from the Alchemist hero as well. Just like the DK and the Monk before had all of their associated WC3 abilities.

Monk did not have strom earth and fire at release, so clearly blizzard has no problems introducing classes without restrictions of wc3 units. Also Chen was "warrior" in wc3. Also two new specs, specially healing spec. Blizzard will reinvent classes for WoW.

Monk did not have strom earth and fire at release, so clearly blizzard has no problems introducing classes without restrictions of wc3 units

The difference being that Monks eventually got SEF, and no existing class had SEF before Monks were brought into the game.

Also Chen was "warrior" in wc3. Also two new specs, specially healing spec. Blizzard will reinvent classes for WoW.

Except they didnt reinvent the Monk class. They took elements from the hero unit, and key aspects of the Monk archetype, infusing it with Pandaren lore.

Both Monks and DKs were very true to their WC3 origins, and flavor. I have little doubt that a Tinker class, if implemented, would be the same. Probably right down to the mechanical arms, and the four WC3 abilities.

Its funny how you accept that tinker could be something entirely different than what tinker was in WC3, but yet demon hunter must be exact replicate of wc3 unit.

It doesn't have to be that, but I think most of the people who want Demon Hunters rawrrrr! would be disappointed if it was reinvented as something else only vaguely-related to the DHs they're familiar with. That's the main thrust here: you're basically creating a new class and calling it Demon Hunter and it's like... why? It doesn't sound like it will add much to the preexisting options.

Originally Posted by Talen

I'll invite you to look at how Tinkers are depicted in game and ask you to get back to me.

idgi. Tinkers/Alchemists/techy types are generally bright, energetic designs devoid of the usual WoW melodrama. DHs are standard-issue 'woe is me, I shall smite my foes with their own dark powers'.

I mean that's cool too, I just feel like I've got enough of it already in the class palette.

IMO...the Tinker class is unsuited for a player class. Tech, in this game, has been a source of levity. Of whimsy. As a result, the Tinker class - as shown - is (IMO) not suited for a player class. It isn't serious enough. It doesn't have the respect of the players.

But... I tank as a Night Elf swaying around like I'm intoxicated and making goofy "I have horns" gestures with my hands, throw barrels of alcohol at ranged enemies, smash beer on the boss' face, and belch flames to ignite my alcohol for laffz. Then I chug some alcohol myself in order to become more nimble or magically remove fatal amounts of bleeding.

Mixed in with that is some fairly-straight-faced stuff about eluding attacks and flowing with the punches so they do less damage, treating myself with herbal medicine, punching/kicking things in the face, paying tribute to a glowing puffy yak god, karmically expelling injury from my body, etc.

There's plenty of room to make a Tinker-style class both badass and lighter-hearted at the same time. See GW2 as an excellent example. It has tons of potential and nearly-completely-uninfringed design space. It's exciting and fresh.

Problem is that practically all DH abilities have already been implemented into other classes, namely Warlocks, Rogues and Hunters. There is literally nothing left for the Demon Hunter class that will make it unique and not massively overlap with those classes.

Problem is that practically all DH abilities have already been implemented into other classes, namely Warlocks, Rogues and Hunters. There is literally nothing left for the Demon Hunter class that will make it unique and not massively overlap with those classes.

If you see the DH NPCs : they got some abilities which are not used by Warlocks/Rogues !!

If you see the DH NPCs : they got some abilities which are not used by Warlocks/Rogues !!

What abilities would that be?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Lovestar

It doesn't have to be that, but I think most of the people who want Demon Hunters rawrrrr! would be disappointed if it was reinvented as something else only vaguely-related to the DHs they're familiar with. That's the main thrust here: you're basically creating a new class and calling it Demon Hunter and it's like... why? It doesn't sound like it will add much to the preexisting options.

idgi. Tinkers/Alchemists/techy types are generally bright, energetic designs devoid of the usual WoW melodrama. DHs are standard-issue 'woe is me, I shall smite my foes with their own dark powers'.

I mean that's cool too, I just feel like I've got enough of it already in the class palette.

But... I tank as a Night Elf swaying around like I'm intoxicated and making goofy "I have horns" gestures with my hands, throw barrels of alcohol at ranged enemies, smash beer on the boss' face, and belch flames to ignite my alcohol for laffz. Then I chug some alcohol myself in order to become more nimble or magically remove fatal amounts of bleeding.

Mixed in with that is some fairly-straight-faced stuff about eluding attacks and flowing with the punches so they do less damage, treating myself with herbal medicine, punching/kicking things in the face, paying tribute to a glowing puffy yak god, karmically expelling injury from my body, etc.

There's plenty of room to make a Tinker-style class both badass and lighter-hearted at the same time. See GW2 as an excellent example. It has tons of potential and nearly-completely-uninfringed design space. It's exciting and fresh.

Yeah I agree with most of this. I think one of the things that appeal to me about the Tinker concept is that its light-hearted, yet intricate and interesting. Some of that light-heartedness stems from the Goblin and Gnome themes, which I also enjoy, and seems very fitting for a WoW tech class.

We definitely have too many dark, brooding, "bad ass" characters. One of the reasons the Monk is my favorite class is that it doesn't take itself too seriously, and its wacky mechanics fit the theme beautifully.

the 3 most demanded things since WoW began.
Death knight
Pandarens
demon hunter

well we got the first 2 so its pretty much safe to say demon hunter is coming at some point when blizzard goes back to being creative.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Dellius

Problem is that practically all DH abilities have already been implemented into other classes, namely Warlocks, Rogues and Hunters. There is literally nothing left for the Demon Hunter class that will make it unique and not massively overlap with those classes.